law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but doth not prove it and it is indeede but an humane devise and conceit and such as is before confuted in my former Booke pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answere And yet it is there shewed that the Companie both Militant and Triumphant make
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
to Minister and to give thankes and to prayse in the Gates of the Tents of the Lord Hee also tooke away the high Places 2. King 18.41 and brake the Images and cut downe the Groves and brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those dayes did the Children of Israell burne incense to it Yea reade the historie of all every one of the Godly kings of Israell and Iuda and you will finde that they all as Supreme governors within their own Dominions commanded aswell the Priests as the people and dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall Why then should not Christian Kings and Princes have the like Authoritie within their Kingdomes which those good and Godly kings of Israell and Iuda had within theirs Will any say that those Kings of Israell and Iuda dealt in those matters Ecclesiasticall by the counsell and advise of the Prophets and the Priests What if they did or what is this to the matter For the Question is not by whose Counsell or advise but by whose Authoritie those things were done Kings even in Civill and Temporall affaires be also Counselled and advised by learned wise and grave Men Doth this therefore prove that they have no Supreme Authoritie in matters Civill and Temporall For by such a reason you may aswell conclude against the one as against the other The direction then advise and counsell which Bishops or others give to Kings and Princes in matters eyther Ecclesiasticall or Civill doth not impeach or oppugne their Supreme commands or Supreme Authoritie eyther in the one case or in the other But some doe then here object that those Kings and Princes of Israell and Iuda had an high Priest or chiefe Priest among them and therefore that there must be likewise an high priest or supreme Pastor in the Christian Church Howbeit first the high Priest in that Iudaicall and Israeliticall Church was not Supreme but subject to those Kings and their commaund as before appeareth Secondly it is granted that there is also an high Priest in the Christian Church but it is not as they fondly suppose the Pope of Rome but CHRIST IESVS onely as the Epistle to the Hebrewes abundantly declareth who is therefore expressely called and affirmed to be our high Priest Hebr. 9.11 Hebr 5.5 H b 4 14. Hebr 7 26. For such an high Priest saith that Epistle it became us to have which is holy harmelesse undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heavens of which sort I am sure the Pope of Rome is not Againe S. Peter sheweth that not himselfe much lesse the Pope of Rome his pretended successor nor any other mortall man whatsoever 1. Pet. 5.4 but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Supreme Pastor or chiefe Sheepheard over all Pastors and Sheepheards of the severall flockes of CHRIST in the world and in respect of that his high Prerogative Hebâ— 13.20 he is also called the great Sheepeheard of the sheepe So that if any would know whom God hath appointed to be the high Priest the Supreme Pastor over the whole Christian Church Militant upon earth They here see that it is not the Pope but CHRIST IESVS onely Yea as touching the Pope of Rome whom they so much dote upon they were never yet able nor ever will be able to prove that God hath any where in his Word constituted and appointed him to be the high Priest or Supreme Pastor over all the Pastors and Bishops in the world much lesse to beare the Supremacie over all Emperors Kings and Princes Yea for the space of divers hundred yeares after CHRIST did even the Bishops of Rome themselves acknowledge and performe subjection to the Emperors as appeareth not onely by those three examples of Meltiades Leo Gregory the great mentioned in my former Booke whereunto my Adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing but by other Bishops of Rome likewise For also Anastasius the second Bishop of Rome spake thus to the Emperor Anastasius Pro fide Catholica humilis pietati tuae precator occurro c. I come saith he Epist ad Anast an humble suppliant to your pietie for the Catholicke faith And hee saith further That God would have not himselfe though he were the Bishop of Rome but the Emperor velut eius Vicarium praesidere in terris as his vicar or in his stead Jbid. cap. 6 to be the cbiefe upon earth Pelagius also the first a Bishop of Rome writing to Childebert King of France being required to make a confession of his faith that so he might shew himselfe not to differ from those that were of the Orthodoxe beleefe Pelag Epist. 16. Concil ediâ— Bin tom 2. pag 633. speaks likewise in this humble and duetifull maner unto him Quanto nobis studio ac labore satagendum est ut pro auferendo suspitionis scandalo obsequium confessionis nostra Regibus ministremus quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt With how great care and labour ought we to strive and endevour for the taking away of the scandall of suspition to yeelde the obedience of our confession unto Kings to whom the holy Scriptures also command us to bee subject From him passe to the times of Agatho another Bishop of Rome in whose dayes was assembled the sixth Councell of Constantinople In that Councell there is an Epistle of his to the Emperor who required him to send some to supply his place Concil Constant 6. act 4 Câ—ncil edit Bin. tom 3. pag. 13. in that Councell To whom Pope Agatho answereth and writeth in that Epistle That to those things which the Emperor commanded hee would promptam obedientiam exhibere yeelde ready obedience Againe he saith Hoc Imperialis benignitas vestra clementer jubens hortata est nostra pusillitas quod jussum est obsequenter implevit This your Imperiall benignitie gently commanding hath required and our meanesse What was commanded hath obediently performed Yea he speaketh yet further in this most submissive sort to the Emperor Obsecro itaque piâ—ssime atque clementissime Auguste atque una cum mea exiguitate Sub finem omnis Anima Christiana flexo genu suppliciter deprecatur c. I therefore beseech you most pious and clement Emperor and together with my meanesse every Christian soule with bended knee humbly intreateth c. Goe on to the times of Pope Hadrian in whose daies it was That the second Nicene Councell was assembled There also you may observe in what humble sort he likewise writeth to the Emperor Concil Nicen 2 â—pist 1. Concil edit Bin. tom 3. pag. 257. Deprecantes cum magna cordis dilectione mansuetissimam vestram Clementiam tanquam praesentialiter humo stratus vestris vestigijs provolutus quaeso coram Deo deposco Praying with great affection of heart your most milde Clemencie and as in your presenâ—e being cast upon
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
but one body and one Church unto CHRIST IESVS whereof he is the Head and that though in his bodily presence and humanitie hee be in heaven yet by his Deitie and power of his Spirit and word he is in Earth with his Church and can tell how to rule governe comfort confirme guide and direct it and to give all giftes and graces requisite and to doe and performe all the offices of an Head unto it much better then the Pope of Rome or any man mortall whosoever Yea himselfe confuteth himselfe when he saith that in these words of CHRIST Reddite quaesunt Caesaris Caesari quaesunt Dei Deo By this word Caesari is understood saith he The Supreme Governor in Temporall affaires and by the word Deo the Supreme Governor in Spirituall affaires For thereupon it followeth that then is not the Pope of Rome the supreme governor in those spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires unlesse he will say that the Pope is God But whereas he maketh Caesar or the Emperor to be the supreme Governour in Temporall affayres onely as though he had no Authoritie in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters also therein is still his error because it is before most manifestly proved that even the heathen Emperors and much more those that were Christian Emperors lawfully might did coÌ„mand for God his service Religion dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill Temporall Yea Rex est persona mixta as our law also calleth him in respect of that his interest Authoritie in causes both Ecclesiasticall Civill For which cause likewise amongst Divines he is said to bee Custos utriusque Tabulae As for that his calumnious speech against Luther and Calvine which he here also inserteth Luther tom 1. in Genes cap. 9. tom 3. Annâ—t in Deut. 6. fol. 40. tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. 152. c. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. in Rom 13. c. as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their lawes it hath beene often answered by sundrie Protestants and the untruth of it is so notorious as that the workes and writings of them both doe shew and openly proclayme the contrarie to the world if men would please to read them and not to wrest their wordes but to take them everie where in a right sense But what meaneth he by this that he saith Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subjects then upon any Protestant subjects what are Papists whom he calleth Catholicks more loyall to Protestant Kings and Princes then Protestants Is there any likelihood of trueth in this Or doth he thinke that Protestant Kings and Princes will or can be so perswaded For is it possible that they who for love or affection to the Pope and Popish Religion denie and oppugne the Kings SUPREMACIE and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth can be more loyall or better subjects unto him then those that acknowledge his SUPREMACIE RELIGION by his Authoritie established Thankefully and joyfully embracing them both praying unto God for the continuance of them and for all maner of happinesse and prosperitie upon him and his which is the defendor and maintayner of them both amongst us and thinke themselves bound in duetie and conscience so to doe Comparisons they say are odious and therefore I could have wished that he had forborne them neyther needed he to have used them For if wee all both Protestants and Papists bee in all respects and at all times found faithfull true and good Subjects to his Majestie as of right duetie we all ought and as I hope we all shall be I doubt not but it will suffice although we strive not thus to provoke one another by Comparative or Superlative termes But what reason hath he further to call Calvine as he doth the sensuall Libertine of this age who wrote against the libertines and against all licentiousnesse and all manner of ungodlinesse and impietie whatsoever For so his many learned laborious godly and worthy workes doe abundantly testifie and declare to the world Will Papists never cease their malitious and untrue accusations against Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants 5 The second Text I alledged to prove the Kings Supremacie over all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within his owne Dominions is taken out of S. Paul in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6 c. Let everie Soule be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation For Magistrates are not to bee feared for good workes but for evill Wilt thou then be without feare of the power Doe well so shalt thou have prayse for the same For he is the Minister of God unto thee for thy good but if you doe evill feare For hee beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Wherefore yee must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake And for this cause pay yee tribute also For they are Gods Ministers imploying themselves for that very purpose By the higher powers in this Text whereto subjection is required which beare the sword for the punishment of the evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well is meant 1. Pet. 2.13.14 as S. Peter also hath before shewed those that be Kings Princes and such like Civill and Temporall Magistrates And this is so evident as that though my Adversary doth not yet the Rhemists doe ingeniously confesse Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers 4. and teach it For That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporall powers we may see say they by the sword tribute and externall compulsion he here attributeth to them Neyther was there then as they say any doubt conceaved by Christian men whether they should obey their Spirituall powers or Spirituall Governors yea or no which is another reason they them give to shew that this Text is not to bee expounded of Spirituall Origen in hunc locum but of Civill and temporall Rulers and Magistrates Origen likewise declareth the same affirming them to be Non Antistites Principes Ecclesiarum sed Mundi judices seculi potestates Not Bishops and Prelates of Churches but worldly Iudges and secular Powers In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges Ambros in hunc locum Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21. seculi
Phocas was but a declaratioÌ„ of that which was ever before belonging to the Bishops of Rome What Had the former Bishops of Rome all the predecessors to Gregorie this title of universall Bishop peculiarized appropriated unto them Why then did Gregorie himselfe say Greg. lib. 4 Epist 32.36 38.39 None of my predecessors Bishops of Rome ever consented to use this so ungodly a name or why did he say That no Bishop of Rome ever tooke upoÌ„ him this name of singularitie Yea he saith We the Bishops of Rome will not receave this honour being offered unto us Wherefore it is apparant that neyther before the times of Gregorie nor in the times of this Gregory any of the Bishops of Rome had this title Yea you see this title detested and rejected even by and in the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as in any other Bishops So that they did not onely condemne it in Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whatsoever as being injurious not onely to other Bishops but especially to CRIST IESVS the onely right and true Vniversall Bishop and the sole and onely Head of the Vniversall Church Vniversa sibi tentat ascribere saith Gregory Greg libr. 4. Epist 36. omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studet membra subjugare He goeth about to ascribe all to himselfe saith he and endevoureth by the loftinesse of his pompous title to subjugate unto himselfe all the members of Christ which of right are to cleave to one onely head which is Christ This title then of Vniversall Bishop or head of the whole Church upon earth appeareth to be as wicked and as unlawfull in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople and his successors if it had rested in them For that which Boniface the third obtayned of Phocas the Emperor is the very same thing which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople sought to get and obtaine This if any make a doubt of it is apparant For first Paulus Diaconus saith Hic Phocas rogante Papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae ut caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum Paul warnefrid Phoca quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat This Emperor Phocas at the suite of Pope Boniface ordayned that the Sea of Rome should be the head of all Churches because the Church of Constantinople wrote her selfe the chiefe of all Churches Vspergens Chronic In like sort speaketh Abbas Vspergensis Post SabintanuÌ„ Bonifacius eligitur ad Pontificatum cujus rogata Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse ommium Ecclesiarum nam antea Constantinopolitana se scribebat primam omnium After Sabinian saith he was Boniface chosen to the Popedome at whose request Phocas ordayned that the Sea of the Romane and Apostolicke Church should be the head of all Churches for formerly the Church of Constantinople had written her selfe the chiefe of all Platin Bonifac. 3 PlaÌ„tina also saith that Bonifacius a Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione Boniface obtayned this of Phocas the Empeâ—â—or but with great contending for it quem quidem loctâ—m Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur Which place saith he the Church of Constantinople endevoured to challenge to her selfe Blondus Blondus also saith Ad huâ—us Bonifâ—â—â— petitionem Phocas Antistitem Romanum principem Episcoporum omniuÌ„ dixit Nauclerus vol 2 Generat 21. At the suite of this Boniface did Phocas affirme the Bishop of Rome to be the Prince of all Bishops And Nauclerus likewise saith that Bonifacium insolentiam Patriarchae Constantinopolitani 〈…〉 appellantis compesâ—â—t Phocas cuim Pontificis suasione publica aâ— ad untâ—ersum orbem dimissa sanctione constituit ut Romanae Ecclesiae Romanoque Pontifici omnes orbis Ecclesiae obedirent Boniface repressed the insolencie of the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himselfe Oecumenicall or universall Bishop For Phocaâ— by the perswasion of the Pope ordayned by a publicke Decree sent to the whole world that all the Churches of the world should be obedient to the Church of Rome By all these testimonies then you perceave that what Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople did formerly desire and seeke after that did Boniface the third Bishop of Rome obtaine of Phocas the Emperor and consequently that title of universall Bishop must needes be as hatefull and damnable in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene by the judgement of Pelagius and Gregorie in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople and his successors As also I trust you now sufficiently great how fond and false an evasion that is which my Adversarie and Bellarmine also useth For if this granting of the title of the universall Bishop to Boniface the third had beene as they say nothing else but a declaration of the thing ever before acknowledged to belong to the Bishops of Rome What cause or neede was there for Boniface the third Bishop of Rome to have beene such an earnest and importunate surer for the obtayning of it at this time Or why did those two Patriarches the one of Constantinople the other of Rome strive and contend at this time so much for it Or why was Phocas himselfe so hardly and not without much a doe induced to yeeld it to Rome rather then to Constantinople which was then the seate of the Emperors Or if it were a thing ever before acknowledged to be due to the Bishops of Rome why did those two Bishops of Rome so hotely and eagerly oppose themselves against it utterly detesting and condemning it not onely in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whosoever as their speeches arguments and reasons doe declare Yea how can it be true that the Bishops of Rome had evermore this title when Gregorie the great Bishop of Rome himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie saying as you heard before that none of his predecessors Bishops of Rome did at any time consent to use so ungodly a name and that no Bishop of Rome at any time tooke upon him this name of singularitie and that they the Bishops of Rome could not take it though it were offered to them Is it not then a point of grosse impudencie in Papists still to denie such apparant and manifest truths But afterward againe in a scoffing manner hee saith that I give notice that I am a Logician by affirming in the 11. pag. of the first part of my Booke that the effect of the negative clause in the Oath of Supremacie is included in the former affirmative clause of the same Oath The affirmative clause saith he of the Oath is that the King is the Supreme Governor in his owne Dominions The negative clause is that no forraine Prince Person Prelate c. And so he goeth on mispending his time